1. His Life and Witness
Rev K M Watkins
We might have expected John Knox to begin his History of the Reformation in Scotland with an account of Patrick Hamilton, burned at the stake at St Andrews in 1527. After all, the sixteenth century was the century of the Reformation proper. However, Knox actually begins a century earlier, tracing rays of gospel light that shone in Scotland back in the 1400s.2
He had gleaned from the Scrolls of Glasgow3 that an unnamed individual had been “burned for heresy” in 1422. He then moves on to 1431, to Paul Craw, who was burned at the stake at St Andrews. His “accusation consisted principally, that he followed John Hus and Wycliffe”, writes Knox.4 Before completing ten lines, Knox traces back the roots of the Scottish Reformation to Wycliffe. He then writes at length of the Lollards of Kyle: 30 persons summoned before King James IV in 1494 to answer 34 articles – which Knox lists in full. They escaped with their lives. Lollard was the term used to denote a follower of Wycliffe,5 and the articles had their source in the teaching of Wycliffe.
Before we can pursue further the connection between Wycliffe and Scotland, an overview of his life and achievements is necessary. John
1The first section of a paper delivered at this year’s Theological Conference.
2The version of The Reformation in Scotland, abridged by C J Guthrie, first published in 1898 and reprinted by the Banner of Truth in 1982, does indeed begin in the sixteenth century. But the full version begins in the fifteenth century, and may be found in the first two volumes of Knox’s Works, edited by D Laing, Wodrow Society, 1846.
3These have not been preserved.
4John Knox, Works, vol 1, p 6, with spelling updated.
5Lollard could well have been a derogatory term to begin with, meaning to mumble or mutter.
Wycliffe was born about 1330, near Richmond, Yorkshire, in northern England. By his early teenage years he was attending Oxford University, the most important centre of learning in all of Europe at the time, where Thomas Bradwardine was coming to the end of his labours. Bradwardine directed his students to Scripture and emphasised the sovereignty of God’s grace. Before him, Robert Grosseteste had taught at Oxford and attacked the abuses of the papal Church. Wycliffe was also influenced by his reading of Augustine. Wycliffe’s scholarly abilities were extraordinary, and saw him attain both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and then his Doctorate of Divinity. He rose quickly to high position in the university and gave himself to the scholastic cut and thrust of late medieval academia, writing vast quantities of material as well as teaching.
The Black Death, one of the worst plagues in history, reached England in 1348. It took away half the population and was the means of awakening Wycliffe to see his unpreparedness for death and judgement. Now he studied the Bible “more earnestly than ever, not as the theologian, but as a seeking soul”, and “the Word of God pointed [him] to Christ”.6 Ever after, his view of Christianity was vitally connected to the Bible. “To be ignorant of the Scriptures”, he said, “is to be ignorant of Christ.”7
It was only in the last decade of his life that Wycliffe rose to prominence beyond academic circles. Those who wanted to see less money drained from England to the papacy were attracted by his teaching that England was under no obligation to lose its revenues and wealth to Rome. His anti-papal patriotism is clear from the following quotation: “There cannot be two temporal sovereigns in one country; either Edward is king or Urban [the Pope at the time] is king. We make our choice. We accept Edward of England and refuse Urban of Rome” (quoted, p 23).
In 1374 he was sent, with others, on royal authority to Bruges, to negotiate with papal representatives over England’s payments to the Pope. Two things resulted: he had such a close-up view of the workings of Rome that he never trusted it again; and an alliance was formed with John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and uncle of Richard II) who was to do much to protect him in later years. The Duke was a politician, and saw Wycliffe’s teaching as a means of maintaining and increasing his own power base.
Wycliffe attacked the whole Romish system as corrupt from top to bottom. He labelled the Pope as “Antichrist, the proud, worldly priest of Rome and
6David Fountain, John Wycliffe, the Dawn of the Reformation, Mayflower Christian Books, 1984, p 9. Other quotations from this source are given in brackets in the text.
7Quoted in Herbert B Workman, John Wyclif, a Study of the English Medieval Church, vol 2, Clarendon Press, 1926, p 151.
the most cursed of clippers and purse-kervers”.8 He also criticised the Pope’s followers closer to home, the friars and others in England who milked the system for their own personal benefit. He was soon in trouble. In February 1377, Courtenay, the Archbishop of Canterbury, summoned him to stand trial at St Paul’s in London. The meeting was a fiasco, beginning with an argument between the Archbishop and John of Gaunt, along with Percy, who was the King’s Marshall, over whether Wycliffe should stand or sit. The meeting ended in disorderly confusion, with John of Gaunt’s men on one side and the Archbishop’s men on the other.
In April 1378, Wycliffe was summoned again, to face trial at Lambeth Palace before the bishops. A large crowd of supporters, who regarded Wycliffe as a national hero, surrounded the Palace. His written defence had denied the power of the priests to absolve from sin, and the bishops were determined to end the life of one whom they regarded as a heretic. However, a message came from Joan, King Richard II’s mother, that they were to do nothing against Wycliffe. Confusion and fear ensued, and Wycliffe went away a free man once again. Joan, mother-in-law to Anne of Bohemia, had great admiration for Wycliffe and his teachings. Anne herself would be instrumental in the spread of Wycliffe’s teachings to Bohemia, and on to John Hus, from whose writings Luther gained so much.
Until this time, Wycliffe’s main endeavours had been against the corruptions of the Romish Church, something others had done before him. But from 1378 his focus was more foundational, examining Rome’s doctrines in the light of Scripture. As for the Pope, he said, he is “potissimus Antichristis – most especially Antichrist” – because he “vilified, nullified, utterly defaced and debased” God’s decrees by his decrees, Christ’s commandments by his commandments, Paul’s Epistles by his decretals, and the canonical Scriptures by his canon law (pp 35,37).
By 1381 he was attacking the root of Rome’s power, the heresy of transubstantiation: “The consecrated host which we see on the altar is neither Christ nor any part of Him but the efficacious sign of Him”; and transubstantiation “cannot be shown to have any foundation in the Word of God” (p 37). John of Gaunt, a Romanist to the end, tried to dissuade him from going in this direction. Wycliffe’s focus on doctrine weakened the enthusiasm of supporters who were drawn to him more for political than religious reasons. But Wycliffe persisted, and though he lost the support of men, God preserved His servant.
When Wycliffe fell dangerously ill, his arch-enemies gathered around his
8Quoted in Fountain, John Wycliffe, p 26. Clipper was Middle English for barber or sheepshearer. Purse-kerver was Middle English for a pickpocket.
sick-bed, certain at last that they would be rid of their adversary. They urged him to recant. Wycliffe rose up on his bed and said defiantly: “I shall not die but live, and again declare the evil deeds of the friars” (quoted, p 37). And so he did.
In May 1382 another council of bishops was held, at Blackfriars in London, at the Pope’s behest, to condemn Wycliffe once and for all. As the meeting began, there was a most unusual earthquake, causing walls to shake and stones to fall from buildings. Wycliffe said it was God showing His displeasure against the council. The Archbishop had a different interpretation: Wycliffe’s teachings had penetrated the very ground, and now the earth was belching out his poisonous teaching. This Earthquake Council, as it was called, proceeded to condemn all 26 of Wycliffe’s doctrines that it examined, labelling 10 heretical and 16 erroneous. Through fear of man, more of Wycliffe’s former supporters left him at this point.
Finally, bishops, doctors of divinity and other clergy were called to a meeting of the Convocation9 at Oxford, which concentrated on Wycliffe’s teaching against transubstantiation. Wycliffe refused to back down. “With whom, think you, are you contending? With an old man on the brink of the grave? No, with truth. Truth which is stronger than you and will overcome you (quoted, p 42).” And with that he left, and no man dared to stop him. He withdrew to Lutterworth, in the East Midlands, where he spent the rest of his days as rector, preaching, pastoring, studying and writing, until 31 December 1384, when he died a natural death, not long after being summoned to Rome to answer before the Pope.
From these years in Lutterworth came the best of Wycliffe’s work. He completed what he had begun earlier in Oxford, initiating and supervising the first translation into English of the entire Bible. Part he did himself; Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey did the rest. It was far from a perfect translation. It was made from the Latin Vulgate, itself a translation by Jerome in the fourth century, neither Wycliffe nor his men having Greek or Hebrew. It included the Apocrypha. Though in English, it was overly-literal, following the Latin word order. Purvey revised it thoroughly after Wycliffe’s death, to make a much more idiomatic and understandable version. What is today called Wycliffe’s Bible is that revision.
Here is an example from Matthew 7: “Therfor ech man that herith these my wordis, and doith hem, schal be maad lijk to a wise man, that hath bildid his hous on a stoon. And reyn felde dou, and flogis camen, and wyndis blewen, and russelschen in to that hous; and it felde not dou, for it was
9The Convocation was the “parliament” of the medieval Church in England. Made up of bishops and other clergy, it had governing powers within the Church.
foundun on a stoon. And euey man that herith these my wordis, and doith hem not, is lijck to a fool, that hath bildid his hous on grauel. And reyn cam doun, and floodis camen, and wyndis blewen, and thei hurliden ayen that hous; and it felde doun, and the falllyng doun thereof was greet.”
Wycliffe not only had the Word of God translated, he also had it preached, by himself and others. He sent out his “poor preachers” throughout England, who, armed with handwritten portions of the newly-translated Scriptures (this was before the invention of printing) went into the villages, towns and cities of the nation, with the gospel of Christ. Wycliffe and his followers could not keep quiet about the teachings of Scripture.
Nothing was more important to Wycliffe than the Bible. Scripture as the sole final authority was his real rallying call and the power of the movement that flowed from him, together with the right of each individual to read the Bible for himself in his own language. He wrote: “The New Testament is of full authority, and open to the understanding of simple men, as to the points that be most needful to salvation”.10 It has rightly been said: “What was characteristic of the man, more than anything else, was his submission to the Bible as the Word of God. . . . All his usefulness derived from his respect for the Word of God. To him the Word of God was the voice of God and the power of God. It transformed him, and through him transformed others” (p 14).
While it was generally accepted that Scripture had authority, Wycliffe was insisting on its exclusive authority. Others added the Church alongside Scripture, but Wycliff insisted on Scripture alone – Sola Scriptura. H B Workman, one of Wycliffe’s main biographers, wrote, “Wycliffe advanced to the position so characteristic of the later Reformation of distinguishing between the Bible and the teaching of the Church . . . Wycliffe’s insistence on the supreme authority of Scripture was not less than that of Luther.”11
As a result Wycliffe held many other Reformation doctrines as well. It has been said that he “had reached and stated almost all the conclusions subsequently held by the Protestant Reformers. . . . The case for Protestantism had been stated”.12 It is true that he did not formulate the doctrine of justification through faith alone as articulately as the Reformation proper, but the essence of it was there. He wrote: “If a man believe in Christ, and make a point of this belief, then the promise that God hath made to come into the land of light shall be given by virtue of Christ, to all men that make this the chief matter” (quoted, p 79).
10Quoted by Workman, John Wyclif, vol 2, p 151.
11Workman, vol 2, pp 149,150.
12McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, p 311, quoted in J E Healey, John of Gaunt and John Wyclif, CCHA, Report, 29 (1962), p 41n.
The Conversions at Pentecost1
4. The Great Change
James Buchanan
3. The results of this great work, as it is described in the short but significant account which is here given. Of the numbers who were converted on this memorable occasion, it is said, “They that gladly received the Word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls”. Here is a remarkable proof of the efficacy of the gospel ministry when it is accompanied with the grace of the Spirit – 3000 souls converted by one sermon, from a multitude chargeable with crucifying the Lord of glory, and in a city already doomed to righteous destruction.
There is much in this wonderful event to encourage the hope and animate the zeal of the Christian Church, in prosecuting the arduous and – as far as mere human power is concerned – impracticable work of the world’s conversion. Here we see how suddenly the most virulent opposition may be disarmed, and the most sceptical indifference broken up by the exercise of that divine power which can change the hearts of men, and convert the boldest objectors into humble disciples, the fiercest enemies into the most devoted friends of the gospel. That divine power still exists and will be put forth for the conviction of the world and the increase and edification of the Church, in answer to believing prayer. This is the sheet-anchor of our hope, the sole ground of our confident expectation, that sooner or later the whole earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, and that all the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ.
The conversion of 3000 souls by one sermon, on the day of Pentecost, is only an example of what may yet be accomplished by the preaching of the gospel, when a nation may be born in a day. The suddenness and magnitude of that work in circumstances so unfavourable, and on subjects so unpromising, should rebuke the incredulity with which we are too apt to regard any remarkable revival amongst ourselves. People may think that we are not entitled to expect similar results from the preaching of the gospel in modern times. It may seem that, as the age of miracles is past and we are now left to the ministry of uninspired men, it would be unreasonable, if not presumptuous, to expect such remarkable success as on the day of Pentecost. But why, is the gospel not still mighty through God? Is the Spirit of God not a perma-
1Taken with editing, from the “Illustrative Cases of Conversion” in The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit. Last month’s article completed the discussion of the circumstances which accompanied the conversions on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2.
ment agent in the Christian Church? And was it not by the Word and Spirit that the 3000 were converted at Pentecost?
It is true that there was a miraculous gift of tongues, but it was the truth applied to the heart by the Spirit that effected the great and sudden change. The miracle made them wonder; the miracle prompted some to mock, saying, “These men are full of new wine”; but it was the truth that pricked their hearts and led them to enquire, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” And it was the truth that converted them, when they “gladly received the Word”; so the real cause of their conversion was the gracious internal operation of the Spirit, whereby He opened their eyes and turned them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God.
The same agency which was put forth on the day of Pentecost continues in the Christian Church; it is exerted in its enlightening, convincing and saving power in the mind and heart of every sinner who is, or ever will be, converted. If, in the primitive Church, the Spirit was pleased to exert His agency in various ways, sometimes calling individuals singly, and adding them one by one to the fellowship of the Church, as in the case of Lydia and Paul and the jailer at Philippi; and at other times awakening a multitude at once, as in the case of the 3000 on the day of Pentecost. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar diversity in how He operates in modern times. If He is pleased ordinarily to bless a stated ministry for the gradual gathering in of His sheep, He may occasionally, when to His infinite wisdom it seems suitable, bring about a more general awakening.
The sudden and simultaneous conversion of many souls, and the daily and gradual increase of the Church by successive single additions to their number, are both mentioned in the narrative. After recording the conversion of the 3000, it is said: “The Lord added unto the Church daily such as should be saved”. But we must take into view, not merely the numbers who were converted, but also their subsequent life and habits. They underwent so complete a change of mind and heart that they might well be called “new creatures”; old things had passed away, and all things had become new. In the short but comprehensive narrative before us, several expressions occur which beautifully exemplify the nature and magnitude of that change, and the peaceable fruits of righteousness which invariably spring from it.
The change properly consisted in their believing “the truth as it is in Jesus”, for it is said that, after Peter’s sermon, “They that gladly received his word were baptized” – clearly intimating that faith in the divine testimony about Christ was the turning point in their conversion, and their qualification for being admitted as members of the Christian Church. Formerly they were unbelievers – they had rejected, condemned and crucified the Lord of glory,
because, through blind ignorance and inveterate prejudice, they refused to receive Him as the Messiah that had been promised to the fathers; they therefore concluded that, as a deceiver of the people, He was “worthy of death”. But now, convinced by the Apostle’s testimony and God’s concurrent attestation in the miraculous gift of tongues, they believed that the same Jesus whom they had crucified was both Lord and Christ.
Instructed in the gracious message which Christ had commissioned His apostles to proclaim, the message of repentance and forgiveness of sin, they gladly received it as the gospel of their salvation, glad tidings of great joy. They thus showed their deep conviction of sin and danger, and that they had applied the gospel to themselves, as a message from God to them. By this simple faith they entered on a new spiritual state, for “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ”, and a Christ to him, “is born of God”.
But this faith was productive of much fruit; it was not the inert speculative faith of which the Apostle James speaks: It “is dead, being alone”. Nor was their gladness in receiving the Word like the evanescent excitement of those “who, when they have heard the Word, immediately receive it with gladness, and have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time”. On the contrary, the good seed of the Word, well rooted in their hearts, sprang up and produced fruit in their lives, for they “continued steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. . . and continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people.”
It is here specially mentioned that their religious impressions continued; they were consistent in their profession; they used all the means of grace diligently; and they advanced in their Christian course. These were marks of the genuine nature of the change that they had so suddenly experienced. All should seriously consider these things, especially those who are conscious that they have been occasionally impressed by divine truth, and may remember some times when they were deeply affected, yet there is no evidence of a permanent change, and no symptom of growing in grace.
Of the three classes of unproductive hearers the Lord mentioned, two experienced some transitory change of feeling: “He that received the seed into stony places . . . heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; but having no root in himself, he dureth for a while; and when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns . . . heareth the word; but the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.” Occasional impressions and transitory emotions are not enough;
many have perished in their sins who were often and deeply impressed. The Lord Himself has forewarned us that he, and he only, “that endureth to the end shall be saved”. This is the first feature of genuine conversion set before us here – the abiding power of religious principle in the heart.
Another feature is the public profession which they made of their faith in Christ and obedience to Him, by submitting to be baptized in His name. This profession they made in very trying circumstances; not only did their baptism amount to a confession that the Jesus whom they had crucified as a malefactor was indeed the Lord of glory, but it was a virtual acknowledgment of their guilt in condemning Him to death. And it pledged them to maintain and defend His cause in a city where there were many scoffers, at a time when they could anticipate the bitterest opposition.
In the very streets of Jerusalem where their voices had helped to raise the fearful cry, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” they now consent to be publicly baptized in His name. This deserves also to be seriously weighed by those who are prevented by shame or fear from acknowledging Christ as their Lord, along with His own solemn declaration, “Whosoever shall be ashamed of Me, and of My words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with His holy angels”.
A Dying Man’s Testament to His Church1
3. Public Scandal
Rev A W MacColl
The second section of Durham’s Treatise is concerned with public offences and how to deal with them. He bases his comments on the fact that the Church officers in Pergamos and Thyatira did not deal faithfully with the Nicolaitans, as we see in Revelation 2. Christ requires ministers and elders to deal faithfully and wisely with offenders.
Durham begins by considering when a scandal should be brought into the public domain. Not all sins, of course, are to be brought before Church courts; these include many things which might be regarded as sins of infirmity: outbursts of bad temper, for example; sins in indifferent matters, such as in civil
1This Theological Conference paper dealt with James Durham’s volume, A Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland, or, A Treatise Concerning Scandal. Last month’s article gave Durham’s understanding of scandal, or offence – what would cause others to stumble into sin, the opposite of edification. It then summarised Section 1 of the Treatise. All page references in the text of this article refer to the Naphtali Press edition of the book.
lawsuits; and even gross sin known to be a fact yet cannot be proved. Again, a gross scandal is not to be made public unless the offender is obstinate after reproof, as the Saviour commands (Mt 18). If the offender can satisfactorily take the reproof, then to make his offence public will rather awaken a scandal among other people than remove it.
For a scandal to be the object of Church discipline it must be gross and infectious in nature; it must be a clear matter of fact and, further, even if not public at first, it may become so if there are frequent relapses, continued obstinacy and contempt of private admonition (p 49). Only offences which contain these aggravations are the proper objects of Church censures. If, however, the scandal is public knowledge before it comes to the attention of Church officers – such as a sin committed in public, or one that is openly spoken about – then private admonition is of no use. The good of others must now take precedence so that even if the person shows evidence of being humbled, the sin must be clearly dealt with by the Church courts.
But how are we to determine a gross evil? It is, he argues, one that is against a clear law of God, as “any sober man, acquainted with the Word of God, and reflecting upon conscience, cannot but acknowledge to be sinful, obstructive to the work of grace in the place where they live, and tending to the marring of the beauty of a Church and the edification and salvation of her members if they should spread”. He instances “Sabbath breaking, swearing, and what directly contradicts a moral command; these things are obviously censurable” (p 50).
Durham draws distinctions as to how public scandals are to be dealt with by Church courts. Some sins are of such a gross nature that even although the offender should appear to be truly sorry for his deed, yet the edification of others necessitates that his sin be rebuked publicly. Others may be dealt with by admonition and, if satisfactory sorrow and amendment are observed, further proceedings may cease. The most serious offences of all deserve the highest censure of excommunication, which Durham regards as an instrument rarely used in the life of the Church and then only for the “most convincingly gross evils” (p 52). Durham bases his view of the highest censures on Matthew 18:17: “If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican”.
It is of some importance to note that he makes no distinction between suspension and excommunication, nor between the lesser and greater excommunication. This was in line with the First Book of Discipline and the Form and Order of Excommunication and of Public Repentance of 1563 (which was often bound with the Book of Common Order). It is not, however, the view taken in the Westminster Confession of Faith which holds a
three-fold distinction in the level of Church censures – admonition, suspension and excommunication.2 George Gillespie, in his work Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, defends the view outlined in the Confession.
The variety of censures leads Durham into a discussion of how public cases are to be dealt with. He contends that Church officers need great wisdom in dealing with such matters since each individual case is different. Regarding the imposition of censures, he believes that what “would scarcely humble one, may crush another, and that which might edify one, might be stumbling to another of another temper” (p 53). This is not partiality, he argues, but rather the best way to secure the end of edification. There is thus no hard and fast rule to apply to each case.
Nevertheless, he lays down some general principles to follow when determining the appropriate censure to be administered. Firstly, the ends for which Church discipline is ordained are ever to be before the minds of the office-bearers. Primarily, this means the vindication of the honour of Jesus Christ, which suffers when one of His members sins. The authority of His ordinances is to be maintained, and disobedience to them is to be chastened. Again, the good of the offender is to be remembered, that the spirit may be saved in the day of Jesus Christ. To that end, he must still be regarded as a brother in Jesus Christ during the judicial process. Furthermore, the good of the Church itself is to be kept in mind, so that sin does not spread like leaven in it. Bearing these principles in mind will tend to direct officers in the right direction.
Christ’s order must always be followed: first, private admonition, then the intermediate step of two or three witnesses and finally to bring the matter before the court. If, at any of these stages, the offender gives reasonable evidence of humbling and amendment, then bringing the matter further is not unto edification. Durham holds that what gives private satisfaction before two or three is enough to satisfy a court and thus the matter need not be brought any further (p 84). Nothing should be brought into public rashly or hastily. If a private admonition might gain a brother, and he walks carefully afterwards, what further is needed? he asks.
In their actual operation, courts must eschew all respect of persons, they must administer discipline in love and sympathy, for “we see that often Church censures have weight as they are [construed] to proceed from love” (p 56). In a passage which challenges all Church officers, Durham exhorts them to “a zealous, serious, grave and authoritative manner of carriage, having weight and authority in their least looks and words, with all gravity . . . Certainly a court of Christ’s ought to look like Him . . . and to have a different stamp from other courts” (p 56).
2Westminster Confession of Faith, 30:4.
While Durham deprecates undue haste, at the same time he urges that discipline cases be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and that there be no long delays between the steps to be gone through. Not least, men generally weary when cases are prolonged, the offender can be irritated and is less likely to be brought to repentance, and the court itself can lose its zeal and seriousness.
What is to be accounted as satisfactory to a court to restore a person who has been under judicial process? Durham warns that not every verbal profession of amendment or acknowledgement of fault is sufficient. A person’s course of life is of far more weight than their words. It is significant that Durham, in common with other seventeenth-century Presbyterian divines, insists that courts are not required to come to a persuasion that a person truly has the grace of repentance or godly sincerity. Such would be to determine whether the person was actually in a state of grace or not, and that, Durham maintains, is beyond what any man or court can discern. He argues that none are shut out of the Church because they are unregenerate but because of scandalous walking; likewise, none are to be received back because they are deemed regenerate but rather because their profession of amendment appears to be consistent with what the gospel requires.
While there may be some whom it is hard to judge, whether they are still obstinate or not, Durham suggests that, for one to be fully restored to church privileges requires “a sober, serious acknowledgement of the offence, with the expression of an unfeigned-like purpose to walk inoffensively, especially in reference to these former offences”. This “moral seriousness” may be either the fruit of saving grace or only from a common operation of the Spirit. He asks how such seriousness may be discerned? By observing a man’s behaviour over a period of time to see if he uses all fit means to avoid making his profession to be suspect.
How can we judge if a person remains obstinate? If a person refuses to hear admonition or appears to have contempt for a court, then they may be counted obstinate. Again, if they deny the offensiveness of what they are accused of, and refuse to endeavour to remove it – as well as denying evident facts brought to their notice – they are obstinate. Frequent relapses into the sin rebuked is further evidence of obstinacy, even if the offender acknowledges his fault.
The Treatise contains a chapter on how private Christians are to act if church officers are negligent in attending to their duty of exercising discipline. It concludes that unfaithfulness in church officers does not pollute the ordinances themselves and that sincere believers ought to continue in fellowship with that Church, even though discipline in particular cases is neglected. If
these believers do their duty in dealing with the scandal, by private admonition, informing the Church and shunning the obstinate offender, the guilt of not dealing with it does not rest on them; they should wait on Christ, with the implication that He will grant redress in His own time and way.